Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Special Events General => Topic started by: Kermit de frog on June 01, 2010, 12:44:01 AM
-
See Rule #4
-
Wow! :confused:
What did I miss?
Regardless, as always. Well stated Kermit.
:salute
-
I don't understand why this is posted because I normally don't fly events outside of FSO, but Kermit I think you have a calling as a motivational speaker bro.
<S>
-
But it also takes prior leadership to instill the virtues and benefits of future leadership.
Some leaders are born great great, yet others need insight to realize it.
-
After all of the Drama from the last Scenario (which after 8 years of playing this game, was my first one), I'll probably never participate in another one. It's a shame too, I had fun.
-
After all of the Drama from the last Scenario (which after 8 years of playing this game, was my first one), I'll probably never participate in another one. It's a shame too, I had fun.
you flew in TFB?
-
you flew in TFB?
Yep. I flew Tempests with my CO Lute. All of us had fun, singing on Range going into the Fights. Hell, even Drex was my wingman. What's not to love about someone from Michigan singing "Oklahoma!" on Range/Squad vox to someone in OK and they're loving it!?
Unfortunately, some drama unfolded prior to the last Frame. Someone on the Axis side changed their plans "in light of recent developments". When it backfired, they "placed blame on others" and not themselves for believing it in the first.
I doubt JG26 will be missed in the next one.
-
But it also takes prior leadership to instill the virtues and benefits of future leadership.
Some leaders are born great great, yet others need insight to realize it.
That reminds me of a quote I heard in High School. (I just searched on google for it.)
"Some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them"
-William Shakespeare
From what I remember, greatness was leadership, with each of the three parts having deep meanings I've forgotten.
What quotes on Leadership do any of you believe in, that you'd be willing to share? Anyone with an empty cup can benefit from your sharing of words.
Here is another quote:
“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”
-John Quincy Adams
-
I don't think leadership is dead, I think that the leaders need to find themselves again. I am by no means a good leader but I do what I must to maintain the fun in the scenario's and snapshots.
-
I have had leadership roles in a quite a few Scenarios. (either as a GL or XO)
Each time, after it is all said and done, I tell myself "never again".
It is a combination of many factors but the bottom line is it ain't easy being the CO/XO. You have to be able to be able to commit to the role and be ready to spend a ton of time and effort on it. I know for the last Scenario I prob. averaged 2 hours a day on it for a solid month and 1/2.
(some days less, some days more, but that is prob. fairly close)
If you do your job well, expect grief from the other side. If THEY do their job well, expect grief from your side. It is hard to balance the fun factor and achieving victory; the two are not always the same and sometimes you have to sacrifice one for the other. (more grief)
I really would like to see more communication between the leadership of both sides for future Scenarios and have CM involvement. Maybe gather once a week, just the CO/XO's and the CM's. so they can talk out what just happened in the last frame. I know there is an debrief thing we do immediately after the frame, but I would limit the meeting to ONLY the CO/XO/CM as they will be able to talk with a bit more candor if it is just them.
Like Subway I don't think leadership is dead, but many of the really 'great' leaders in this game have reached the same conclusion I did and have the "never again" attitude. You work your tookus off for almost two months and, win or loose, end up getting an incredible amount of grief from the community when all is said and done.
I am sure next year I will be up for another go at it 'cause I am stupid like that, and I hope that many others that have burned out will give it another try down the road.
-
I have had leadership roles in a quite a few Scenarios. (either as a GL or XO)
Each time, after it is all said and done, I tell myself "never again".
It is a combination of many factors but the bottom line is it ain't easy being the CO/XO. You have to be able to be able to commit to the role and be ready to spend a ton of time and effort on it. I know for the last Scenario I prob. averaged 2 hours a day on it for a solid month and 1/2.
(some days less, some days more, but that is prob. fairly close)
If you do your job well, expect grief from the other side. If THEY do their job well, expect grief from your side. It is hard to balance the fun factor and achieving victory; the two are not always the same and sometimes you have to sacrifice one for the other. (more grief)
I really would like to see more communication between the leadership of both sides for future Scenarios and have CM involvement. Maybe gather once a week, just the CO/XO's and the CM's. so they can talk out what just happened in the last frame. I know there is an debrief thing we do immediately after the frame, but I would limit the meeting to ONLY the CO/XO/CM as they will be able to talk with a bit more candor if it is just them.
Like Subway I don't think leadership is dead, but many of the really 'great' leaders in this game have reached the same conclusion I did and have the "never again" attitude. You work your tookus off for almost two months and, win or loose, end up getting an incredible amount of grief from the community when all is said and done.
I am sure next year I will be up for another go at it 'cause I am stupid like that, and I hope that many others that have burned out will give it another try down the road.
What do you wish to accomplish with these meetings between frames and amongst the CO/XO/CM?
Most people here do not care if they win or lose, as we are all here to have fun in the journey a scenario can provide. Why must a decision be made to accept more grief to obtain victory?
As with life, while you get what you put in, nothing is guaranteed. Leading these scenarios is a lot of work, but this is why there are GL and players that help share the workload through delegation. Thus anyone can lead a scenario without much hours, as long as you can delegate, maintain good character and understand the reason why we are all here. I've seen a few scenarios require very little hours by the CO. I've seen players put more hours into scenarios when compared to GLs or even COs. Many AH players enjoy helping GLs and COs, in their journey, all you have to do is ask. :)
-
It is very import. that communication is kept up between both sides and that both leadership and the CM's focus on what is best for the players in the Scenario. It is clear that in the last Scenario, both sides had a diff. opinion on the write up and the focus of the Scenario. Do you not agree that a simple conversation would have cleared it right up?
It is very import. that an "us vs them" mentality doesn't happen with the leadership of both sides. The best way to avoid that is communication. Both sides are 'in it to win it' but the enjoyment of the players on BOTH sides needs to be taken into consideration while the Scenario is running.
Not quite sure what you are asking re: the grief vs. victory.
As far as delegation, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
" Delegating work works, provided the one delegating works, too. "
- Robert Half
There's a leadership quote for ya'.
Here is one of my fav's.
“A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.”
- Lao Tzu
-
It is very import. that communication is kept up between both sides and that both leadership and the CM's focus on what is best for the players in the Scenario. It is clear that in the last Scenario, both sides had a diff. opinion on the write up and the focus of the Scenario. Do you not agree that a simple conversation would have cleared it right up?
It is also very import. that an "us vs them" mentality doesn't happen with the leadership on both sides. The best way to avoid that is communication. Both sides are 'in it to win it' but the enjoyment of the players on BOTH sides needs to be taken into consideration while the Scenario is running.
Not quite sure what you are asking re: the grief vs. victory.
As far as delegation, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
" Delegating work works, provided the one delegating works, too. "
- Robert Half
There's a leadership quote for ya'.
Here is one of my fav's.
“A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.”
- Lao Tzu
-
Just my opinion, and purely based on scenario experience.
The priority of the COs, XOs and GLs first and foremost needs to be on providing the best possible experience for the players on both teams.
The second the priority becomes more on scores and 'winning', everyone loses
The beauty of a scenario is it offers the opportunity to combine the history so many of us crave and the teamwork that can come from flying the operations that scenarios provide that are so different from the MA.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be competitive, but too often folks get lost in trying to 'game' the scenario rules and forget that it's about the actual scenario experience not the points.
The greatest thing AH has to offer is that moment in a scenario where you get lost in the radio chatter, the sight of all those planes, and when you get sucked into the 'cockpit' and it feels as real as it can in a computer game.
One of the moments I was proudest of, during DGS was when there was a time where we could have raised some question about something the other side did, and it may have impacted the 'points'. To a man the CO, XO and GLs all said, forget it. We'd had fun and enjoyed the event, and it didn't matter beyond that.
-
It is very import. that communication is kept up between both sides and that both leadership and the CM's focus on what is best for the players in the Scenario. It is clear that in the last Scenario, both sides had a diff. opinion on the write up and the focus of the Scenario. Do you not agree that a simple conversation would have cleared it right up?
It is very import. that an "us vs them" mentality doesn't happen with the leadership of both sides. The best way to avoid that is communication. Both sides are 'in it to win it' but the enjoyment of the players on BOTH sides needs to be taken into consideration while the Scenario is running.
Not quite sure what you are asking re: the grief vs. victory.
As far as delegation, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
" Delegating work works, provided the one delegating works, too. "
- Robert Half
There's a leadership quote for ya'.
Here is one of my fav's.
“A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.”
- Lao Tzu
Both sides are "in it to win it".
The truth is most people are not in it to win it. They are in it to have fun. Most people don't use deception, thus they can be trustworthy. The last time this idea of having both sides communicate to prevent the "us vs them mentality", Dantoo exposed me to his manipulation tactics he uses upon the CMs, as well as the role Bearkats has taken as the public image, along with much much more. Sorry, but I don't trust this idea one bit. Many past scenarios have not had serious issues with opposing leadership teams, except for the ones Dantoo/Bearkats and other "ends justify the means" type of people are involved. The XO/CO/CM on both sides already get together on the forums privately, why the need for another form of communication?
"As far as delegation, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link."
Yes, this is true, but so what, isn't this the nature of teamwork? Do you see this as something that should be avoided?
If you do your job well, expect grief from the other side. If THEY do their job well, expect grief from your side. It is hard to balance the fun factor and achieving victory; the two are not always the same and sometimes you have to sacrifice one for the other. (more grief)
If you sacrifice fun for achieving victory, in the end, what have you won? Pursuing victory and achieving victory are different. Fun can come from pursuing victory, but it should not be sacrificed to achieve victory.
What is this belief of winning without fighting, in a game where fighting is winning?<---question goes to Lute, Dantoo & Bearkats.
I think I am in 100% agreement with what Guppy just said.
Being an XO/pilot/CO/GL is tons of fun, with many people enjoying themselves. I only wish more would participate, to help continue the great experiences we can have with the great opportunity we are given by the hard work of the CMs. If it were not for Scenarios, FSO and HTC, plus Fencer and Guppy, along with many more, I would have never read so many WWII books, eventually inspired to meet living WWII vets to give thanks. I'm sure this is the same for many others.
All this time away from battle is making us scenario pilots restless!
-
To respond to your question posed: When one side sits back and hoards up defensivly, who is the one not fighting? From my perspective the Axis avoided fighting the Allies by adopting this tactic.
Kind of silly to sit back en mass waiting for an attack and then complain when your opponent decides to not take that fight and hits you somewhere else.
I would like to point out that many, if not all, of the tactics that were used by the Allies in this last Scenario were used by the Allies in Tunisia, which you were the Allied CO of.
In Tunisia you were obviously "in it to win it".
NOE hoards? (check, you did that)
Sneak raids? (check, you did that)
Avoiding fights? (check, you did that)
<I could go on>
Pot meet kettle.
The majority of your posts are just thinly (and some not so thin) veiled personal vendettas against Dantoo and BearKats, that for the life of me I don't understand and from my perspective not even reality based. I have asked you in private (and public) to explain yourself. You refused.
Reminds me of a story a squaddie has about you Frog. The two of you agreed to fight 1 on 1 and went at it. IIRC you were in the Tiffy and they were in a 109K. He got an E advantage on you and was dancing on your head so you called in one of your squaddies to attack him.
When asked why you broke the 1 on 1 agreement your reply was basically; "you were not fighting the way I wanted you to".
-
Seriously now.......
regarding the last Scenario, both sides had fun, although it might not been at the same time in the same frames.......
also, both sides while having fun, were also going for the points ( win )
after all was said and done, the CM posted the allied was the overall winner......
both sides skirted with the original write-up of the Scenario & the rules imposed
Guppy says it best in the quote below:
Just my opinion, and purely based on scenario experience.
The priority of the COs, XOs and GLs first and foremost needs to be on providing the best possible experience for the players on both teams.
The second the priority becomes more on scores and 'winning', everyone loses
The beauty of a scenario is it offers the opportunity to combine the history so many of us crave and the teamwork that can come from flying the operations that scenarios provide that are so different from the MA.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be competitive, but too often folks get lost in trying to 'game' the scenario rules and forget that it's about the actual scenario experience not the points.
The greatest thing AH has to offer is that moment in a scenario where you get lost in the radio chatter, the sight of all those planes, and when you get sucked into the 'cockpit' and it feels as real as it can in a computer game.
One of the moments I was proudest of, during DGS was when there was a time where we could have raised some question about something the other side did, and it may have impacted the 'points'. To a man the CO, XO and GLs all said, forget it. We'd had fun and enjoyed the event, and it didn't matter beyond that.
is time to move on and get ready for the next Scenario :cheers:
-
TFB was my first experience as CO. I enjoyed the experience immensely. Would do it again in a heartbeat.
What I found, especially when the going got rough, several of my GL's finally stepped up to the plate. I got the responses I had hoped for and asked for from the very onset of the scenario. I even had some of the FL's throw their weight into it. All in All I was very pleased with my staff.
I agree with points made on boths sides of this discussion, which by the way I hope remains civil, because a discussion on this subject is needed.
Since this is a game, yet it contains a good degree of "realism", you have at least to types of participants:
1. Those who are their for the fight and to have fun, and
2. Those who are their to win and stick it to the other side.
That being said, the command staff has to juggle those 2 mindsets in order to maintain a solid turnout through out all the frames and be able to sufficiently satisfy both.
When I got the nod to CO in TFB, my first duty was to fill my staff. After finding out I was to take on the duties as Axis CO, I looked first at the Squads that I knew where into the german iron. Keep in mind here that other than being a Race CM, I am a relatively unknown player in this community, this makes it even more difficult to recruit people as in their minds they have no real reference as to your own personality.
I also used previous scenario experiences with some of these guys as to how they dealt with orders, being on the losing end of the stick, and how they conducted themselves on the boards after acheiving a big win or suffering defeat, especially if that defeat was based on questionable terms.
As far as I am concerned, I ended up with a good staff. I learned alot from these guys that I can carry into a future attempt at this. I made some fatal mistakes at points which cost us some serious ground. The biggest of those was not using certain squads to their full potential. Even though I did that, and by george they let me hear about by frame 4, their leadership managed to stem a mutiny and ended up shining in the final frame.
In closing on this, one thing I do really agree with Lute on is the Pre-Scenario "reading" of the writeup. The designer needs to be actively involved with both CO's in explaining the design and the reasoning of certain restrictions. The writeups can be vague which leaves alot of wiggle room to take advantage of things. I'm sure if they really wanted they could write bullet proof rules, but then the design becomes overly restrictive. It's true, Myself and my staff had an entirely different interpretation of what was meant of the design vs. the Allied perception. This in turn is what created the atmospheres of how the orders were percieved.
-
Well here comes the shot from the low man on the totem pole.... Lute, you wonderd why I was always causing some problem when I was flying under your southern command? this post covers the reason perfectly. Plain and simple "In it to win it".... I think this is the first SEC where I even found out who won. Ive never cared who won or who will win. Out of the 5 SECs Ive flown in this one just...*sigh*...ridiculous I hung with my role for 3 frames and hated it the whole time switch planes in frame 4 and had the most fun out of the whole SEC (TFB). And the leadership is what really got to me the whole time.
-
Well here comes the shot from the low man on the totem pole.... Lute, you wonderd why I was always causing some problem when I was flying under your southern command? this post covers the reason perfectly. Plain and simple "In it to win it".... I think this is the first SEC where I even found out who won. Ive never cared who won or who will win. Out of the 5 SECs Ive flown in this one just...*sigh*...ridiculous I hung with my role for 3 frames and hated it the whole time switch planes in frame 4 and had the most fun out of the whole SEC (TFB). And the leadership is what really got to me the whole time.
Vudu,
I assume you are a decent person, but for someone who didn't follow the orders given to them, and to go off on your own accord and do your own thing, so you could "get some kills" persay in the TFB scenario........ you really should not have posted the above message....
btw this is a Scenario.. not a SEC
as for leadership getting to you? you have to learn to follow your leader, FL/GL etc......not do your own thing....... it is a TEAM EFFORT, sir.......
Plain and simple "In it to win it"....
yep, for yourself personally maybe.....
a refresher link for you Vudu15, Sir:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,284124.msg3629178.html#msg3629178
I just realized this was dejavu ..........
-
Well sir I thought long and hard about posting in here and thought you know what....screw it. My bad for the SEC/SECnario mix up....Number two your darn right i dint follow orders a couple times, because they were down right silly plain and simple. The spit16s were used for goofy missions like oh idk bomber escort in beta and frame1 sent to alts we couldn't operate at and also bingo fuel, frame 3 Lute had us attack a surface fleet and after wed been shot down once you informed us we needed more ords than we could hope to place on them to kill any of the vessels. Lute sent us to point farm at an undefended field while an entire Mossie group got decimated down low only 25-50 miles away from our position just the type of fight we excelled at, afterwards when I made an issue about it no one seemed to have a big deal with it. Because they made "more points than they lost" and went beyond expectations with their NOE raid. You informed us of rules after the fact, and generally had us doing things that made no sense. enemy cons make the field flash and were told to run....fly patrol over the coast that has an enemy city on it so were being hit with puffy ack the whole time...multiple reports of enemy planes landing and refueling at a base a grid away what did we do?......hit the undefended field again. And during all of this where were you roaming the country side doing who knows what. which is fine, tell ya what fly around for three hours then get shot down by puffy ack, and tell me if ya had a good time....oh added bonus theirs no way youll sink the boat if you even do hit it. Let me know how it goes. Oh and Tequila.... nvm I flew under SubwayCH had none of these problems during Red Steel jumped into TFB and its like WTH happened....
Oh but I forgot Tequila Im crazy and you were right their flying with us........ and when you have to listen to Captains and LTs who send you on silly missions all day at work then come back and hear more orders that make no sense on the game you want to play and have fun playing well thats just too much sir and I wont stand by quietly anymore. And thats that sir.
Vudu15
-
I kinda did the same thing Vudu did...on the Axis side. Especially in frame 2 and 3. Taking drop tanks on 190D-9s and chasing squirrels all over the map, was nothing more than a waste of time. And the D-9s couldn't compete over 30k, they wallowed like fish out of water.
I didn't agree with the strategic orders, or the roles that were assigned to some of the squads, too much emphasis on the 234s and not on stopping the Allied attacks before they could get into place...but since I wasn't in charge and points were the name of the game...I kept my mouth shut and did what I could with what I had to work with.
-
I didn't agree with the strategic orders, or the roles that were assigned to some of the squads, too much emphasis on the 234s and not on stopping the Allied attacks before they could get into place...but since I wasn't in charge and points were the name of the game...I kept my mouth shut and did what I could with what I had to work with.
Really man? Only in meetings did we talk about the 234s, since it was our only source of offensive points...there were many questions to be had and asked. Aside from that I was pretty much on my own as to how I wanted to run my show and get it done. Kermit and I spent an entire night planning and gathering times, loadouts, etc. on one of the frames, since he was paired with me most of the scenario. My biggest enemy was not the opposing side, but the computer problems and white screens. IMO 4440 did a damn good job as a first time CO and really took into consideration everyone's opinion and request. Face it, you can't have it all. You should have spoken up, because it would have been heard.
I focused on my role and chimed in when I thought needed necessary during meetings about the rest of the fighters.
-
Really man? Only in meetings did we talk about the 234s, since it was our only source of offensive points...there were many questions to be had and asked. Aside from that I was pretty much on my own as to how I wanted to run my show and get it done. Kermit and I spent an entire night planning and gathering times, loadouts, etc. on one of the frames, since he was paired with me most of the scenario. My biggest enemy was not the opposing side, but the computer problems and white screens. IMO 4440 did a damn good job as a first time CO and really took into consideration everyone's opinion and request. Face it, you can't have it all. You should have spoken up, because it would have been heard.
I focused on my role and chimed in when I thought needed necessary during meetings about the rest of the fighters.
Yeah I agree 4440 did a very good job and I would fly under him again. I'm certain he learned a lot from the experience of the last scenario.
I didn't agree with the defensive tactics and did voice my concerns in the first meetings.
I didn't agree with the 190D-9s and A-8s not being set loose to attack the Allied bases in the South for the first frame and voiced that.
I didn't agree with the use of the 190A-8s as strike aircraft only and voiced that.
I didn't agree with the use of the 109G-14s as escorts for the attack fighters and voice that as well.
We had the capacity to do a lot of damage in frame 1 and force the Allies to do exactly what we ended up doing, wonder where they were going to target and how in the next frame.
-
I admit I got wrapped up in the points, and also due the fact that I am a bomber junky I will freely admit and did throughout I know little of our fighters pros and cons.
what happened towards the end, The GL's started getting really vocals as to what you all wanted to see your squad do. That was coupled with the fact we threw the points factor out the window in the 4th frame. Without the full breakdown given to us, IE frame by Frame, I think the 4th frame was ultimately our best, and that wasn't due to my planning, that was thanks to good info from the GL's. Quite frankly I didn't offer much in the way of battle plans for frame 4, I just glued together what the GL's requested.
Like I said earlier, I let several squads end up flapping around in the wind and didn't utilize their strengths properly. Given the chance to do it again (famous last words :o ) I would do things somewhat differently.
-
Yeah I agree 4440 did a very good job and I would fly under him again. I'm certain he learned a lot from the experience of the last scenario.
I didn't agree with the defensive tactics and did voice my concerns in the first meetings.
I didn't agree with the 190D-9s and A-8s not being set loose to attack the Allied bases in the South for the first frame and voiced that.
I didn't agree with the use of the 190A-8s as strike aircraft only and voiced that.
I didn't agree with the use of the 109G-14s as escorts for the attack fighters and voice that as well.
We had the capacity to do a lot of damage in frame 1 and force the Allies to do exactly what we ended up doing, wonder where they were going to target and how in the next frame.
I guess I don't know as much as others do since like said, I was kind of out on a limb with the bomber aspect. I personally had to agree with the 109s 'escorting' us 234s in, because we couldn't devote our only 6 262s to escort duty. Props and Jets don't really mix too well.
I had to live with the fact that I probably wouldn't be escorted in first strike. So we designed the northern/attack runs based around the 234s. If we made our run and got back, the props would be in the heat of battle when we made our second strike. The idea was also brought up holding the bombers and letting the props find the CV, but that got shot down, and I ended up going up solo and looking. It was the better idea as I didn't have to worry about myself + 7 other formations of 234s behind me if we got spotted.
When all is said and done, yes things could have been done better. It would have been nice if we didn't have to attack anything, but got bonus points for knocking down lancs (etc). This would have provided a role for the 234s as scouting as well. It also would have forced the allies to protect their lancs more instead of sending them in NOE un escorted.
-
I think we are all antsy and ready to fight in the next one :t
-
Bear in mind Spikes that only 2 lancs went NOE unescorted for Frames 1-3.
We had 2 guys tasked with that role and the vast majority of our lancasters were escorted by Ponies for every run in all the frames. Frame 4 ya'll came at us with such force that we ended up stripping the Ponies from escort duty just to keep us from getting swept off the map.
I understand why players think we did "mostly" NOE runs as the two people we had doing that were very, very successful and racked up a ton o' points, but the plain truth is we ran our buffs at alt and w/ escorts.
Good stuff here people, keep it coming. It is threads like this that will help the next Leadership group learn what pitfalls to avoid.
-
While this thread really isn't about who did what in the last one, it is about what someone should expect from a leader.
My guys expected me to work with my command staff, give them a set of orders (like them or not), communicate, and stick with the program. They also expect me to own up to my mistakes, learn from them, and not repeat them. They also expected me to act with integrity and honor, win or lose. I believe and hope I did most of that, as I expected the same from my GL's, which they did. I know dang well they were not happy with some of my decisions, but they stuck with me till the end. THAT is devotion and leadership at the level they signed on for.
I myself have sincerely disliked decisions made by CO's in the past, yet I "signed" the dotted line to do what they requested. Even though their was dissapointment, I still fully respect many of them for the hard calls they made.
-
Also, there are a lot of leaders out there. Some do not know it yet, others cannot fully commit due to other obligations, which in itself is a sign of leadership. Now no offense Fud, you were #3 on my list, but my other 2 had RL things to contend with and could not commit. I quite frankly was real close to not being able to fulfill my obligations due to the issues the game itself was causing.
-
None taken, i knew that from the beginning.
-
well i was not there because of TRW commitments but i had fun when i was there and think the drama is unfortunate but to be expected.
you see, we care, some of us care a lot. that causes us to have more than a casual response to the things that happen that we don't like and or decisions we disagree with.
caring is good, and argument is not necessarily bad, however allowing things to give you a poor attitude, and or cause you to hold grudges or undermine others efforts is clearly counterproductive.
so it is a struggle to act positively on your interest yet restrain yourself from the negative consequences of what is a fundamental requirement for a healthy community.
it is good to be able to butt heads with others on the boards and still feel confident relying on them in a virtual combat situation a few hours later.
++S++
all i had fun in all the frames i was able to attend
t
-
To respond to your question posed: When one side sits back and hoards up defensivly, who is the one not fighting? From my perspective the Axis avoided fighting the Allies by adopting this tactic.
Kind of silly to sit back en mass waiting for an attack and then complain when your opponent decides to not take that fight and hits you somewhere else.
I would like to point out that many, if not all, of the tactics that were used by the Allies in this last Scenario were used by the Allies in Tunisia, which you were the Allied CO of.
In Tunisia you were obviously "in it to win it".
NOE hoards? (check, you did that)
Sneak raids? (check, you did that)
Avoiding fights? (check, you did that)
<I could go on>
Pot meet kettle.
The majority of your posts are just thinly (and some not so thin) veiled personal vendettas against Dantoo and BearKats, that for the life of me I don't understand and from my perspective not even reality based. I have asked you in private (and public) to explain yourself. You refused.
Reminds me of a story a squaddie has about you Frog. The two of you agreed to fight 1 on 1 and went at it. IIRC you were in the Tiffy and they were in a 109K. He got an E advantage on you and was dancing on your head so you called in one of your squaddies to attack him.
When asked why you broke the 1 on 1 agreement your reply was basically; "you were not fighting the way I wanted you to".
Your posts says this to me:
The Axis were the ones avoiding the fight.
The Axis were the ones hording in this scenario.
I am a hypocrite since I as CO in Dawn of Battle Scenario used the same tactics as you did in TFB, while advocating your wrong doings.
I have a personal vendetta with BK and Dantoo that makes no logically sense to you and that I refuse to explain myself to you in private or in public.
Attack me in any direction you want, I believe I have a just cause and am immune to your deception.
You claim I as CO in Dawn of Battle was "in it to win it" is simply incorrect. Every man on the allied side knew where my heart was at all times. You claim I used the horde tactic in DoB, that is also incorrect. In frames 3 and 4, after 2 frames of having Dantoo send the entire Luftwaffe to bomb the allied GVs at Kasserine, the allies did indeed combine all forces, relying on skill and responsibility to protect fellow GVers, not points. Dantoo gave the allied fighter pilots a clear vision, that was to protect the GVers so they too could enjoy the scenario as the pilots did in frames 1 and 2. We fought to fight, and to protect our fellow countrymen. This experience is what we remember, not the score.
History has shown that if Dantoo's manipulation tactics are learned from, for the purpose of identifying and rejecting, little harm can come from him and his followers. This is the reason why I choose to educate the community. I leave it up to everyone to decide what to do with this information.
Now WMLute, I ask again;
The XO/CO/CM on both sides already get together on the forums privately, why the need for another form of communication?
What is this belief of winning without fighting, in a game where fighting is winning?<---question goes to Lute, Dantoo & Bearkats.
I hope this discussion will be able to come to a solution in the end.
-
:aok
-
Attack me in any direction you want, I believe I have a just cause and am immune to your deception.
To respond to your question: There is no point what so ever in the leadership communicating. Who cares that both groups of Leadership have openly stated here in this thread that it would have been a good idea and they wish we did have meetings during the Scenario.
You of course are correct, and everybody else is wrong. There is nothing more that I can say because you have it all "figured out" and just busted me.
You of course saw right through what is going on and saw that what I was REALLY wanting is a way for Dantoo and his evil minions to have a way to manipulate the other side during the Scenario. I of course am nothing but a lackey for the great and all powerful Aussi and am merely his mouthpiece here trying to further his agenda of total dominance in Aces High.
I'm busted.
You got me.
We will have to try and hatch another master plan now as the Frog has thwarted us yet again.
Curse you O' Froggy one!
(off to the secret radio I have in the WidowMaker Pleasure Barn (tm) to make contact w/ my lord and master Dantoo and see what it is he wants me to do now...)
-
Planning tells us how to accomplish a mission. Training gives us the ability to accomplish the mission when the plan fails. Leaders know how to plan and train. (unknown NCO/Leader)
-
I'll say this. If you commit the amount time to not only FLY, but accept a LEADERSHIP position in a Scenario and you DO NOT "play to win".......you have many screws loose. Everyday flying? I can careless. But when you're tying up a Saturday from 3pm-whenever, to be blasé shows you must not have sacrificed either time with your kid(s), time with family, etc.
If I fly in another Scenario and it isn't looking good, I'll "play to win" again.
-
I'll say this. If you commit the amount time to not only FLY, but accept a LEADERSHIP position in a Scenario and you DO NOT "play to win".......you have many screws loose. Everyday flying? I can careless. But when you're tying up a Saturday from 3pm-whenever, to be blasé shows you must not have sacrificed either time with your kid(s), time with family, etc.
If I fly in another Scenario and it isn't looking good, I'll "play to win" again.
K, it's best if you define 'win' when you say that as I think the issue is what 'winning' is in a scenario.
The last scenario I was lucky enough to fly, I won, even though my side lost on points.
-
I'll say this. If you commit the amount time to not only FLY, but accept a LEADERSHIP position in a Scenario and you DO NOT "play to win".......you have many screws loose. Everyday flying? I can careless. But when you're tying up a Saturday from 3pm-whenever, to be blasé shows you must not have sacrificed either time with your kid(s), time with family, etc.
If I fly in another Scenario and it isn't looking good, I'll "play to win" again.
If this is what you choose to do, then so be it.
At least you are unafraid to say what you truly believe in.
:salute
“A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at.”-Bruce Lee
Aim high, do your best and enjoy the ride. :aok
If the enemy wishes to mass all of their planes for a last minute attack as their strategy, we will simply grow stronger with every minute they wait. The longer they take to come up with a nicely worded response, the more time it allows us to understand ourselves. Ultimately it matters not what your opponent does, but what you choose to do.
Now WMLute, I ask once again;
The XO/CO/CM on both sides already get together on the forums privately, why the need for another form of communication?
What is this belief of winning without fighting, in a game where fighting is winning?<---question goes to Lute, Dantoo & Bearkats.
-
If this is what you choose to do, then so be it.
At least you are unafraid to say what you truly believe in.
:salute
“A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at.”-Bruce Lee
Aim high, do your best and enjoy the ride. :aok
If the enemy wishes to mass all of their planes for a last minute attack as their strategy, we will simply grow stronger with every minute they wait. The longer they take to come up with a nicely worded response, the more time it allows us to understand ourselves. Ultimately it matters not what your opponent does, but what you choose to do. Thus, I chose to simply make that which is invisible, visible, whatever is evil, good, whatever is wrong, right, forever maintaining the balance for others to enjoy.
Now WMLute, I ask once again;
The XO/CO/CM on both sides already get together on the forums privately, why the need for another form of communication?
What is this belief of winning without fighting, in a game where fighting is winning?<---question goes to Lute, Dantoo & Bearkats.
Allies never "massed" anything. I have film of no less than 60 109's/190's that had loitered too long and were slaughtered wholesale.
I've always spoken my mind (it's why some have an issue with me), but I have an 8 year old son and a wife. IDGAF about "points", etc. If I'm detracting from that "family time", a "reward" makes it a little easier to justify.
-
Starters the spit 14s and 16s typhoons and temps were attached at the hip for the first 2 or 3 frames I remember, don't know if this counts as massed but there wee a few of us.And because I was sittin there goin WTF are we doing with all of our southern fighters in one place.....And Masher if you need a justification to play aces high or its taking so much time that your family life is suffering, you might consider giving it up....just a suggestion sir.
-
Starters the spit 14s and 16s typhoons and temps were attached at the hip for the first 2 or 3 frames I remember, don't know if this counts as massed but there wee a few of us.And because I was sittin there goin WTF are we doing with all of our southern fighters in one place.....
There is a perfect example for ya' Frog.
I might add Vudu that were were OVER enemy territory and enemy bases just waiting for them. We were about as aggressive as can be and the Axis just sat back and waited (not sure for what) and allowed it.
The reason you kept asking yourself "WTF are we doing" is because the Axis never responded as they should have. The reason I had the groups paired or bunched as they were is because, if they chose to fight, the Axis could have easily fielded even odds, if not twice our numbers, and swept us off the map.
We went on the offensive each and every frame throughout each and ever frame. We were VERY aggressive in our tactics. We came out and dared ya's to come get us time and again. Not over our territory, not over Neutral ground, but in Axis airspace over Axis bases. Time and again we ranged into Axis territory about as far as the fuel limits of our rides would allow.
-
The XO/CO/CM on both sides already get together on the forums privately, why the need for another form of communication?
Asked and answered.
What is this belief of winning without fighting, in a game where fighting is winning?<---question goes to Lute, Dantoo & Bearkats.
Question is directed to the wrong leadership group. We went looking for a fight in all four frames. (see above post)
-
Asked and answered.Question is directed to the wrong leadership group. We went looking for a fight in all four frames. (see above post)
Could you help me find your answers. Possibly either restate them or simply use the quote feature on this forum.
-
The designer needs to be actively involved with both CO's in explaining the design and the reasoning of certain restrictions. The writeups can be vague which leaves alot of wiggle room to take advantage of things. I'm sure if they really wanted they could write bullet proof rules, but then the design becomes overly restrictive. It's true, Myself and my staff had an entirely different interpretation of what was meant of the design vs. the Allied perception. This in turn is what created the atmospheres of how the orders were percieved
Much can be lost or misinterpreted when just reading things. Be it write ups or posts on the forum.
Holding a weekly meeting over TeamSpeak would go a long way in making sure that everybody is on the same page.
It is a lot easier to explain via voice than by posting back/forth.
I know I could talk with someone via TeamSpeak and clear up in 5 min what would take 2-3 pages of text on the forum.
Much is lost both in intent and meaning when typed as opposed to verbally conversing. There is a reason the President has the Red Phone in the Oval Office. (hotline)
It astounds me that you are arguing against this.
I would now ask you a question. Why are you against clear and open communication between the leadership and CM's?
-
Lute we had weekly meetings with our GLs, sadly not many could attend each time.
-
Lute we had weekly meetings with our GLs, sadly not many could attend each time.
Spikes there are many reasons why we all can not attend these meetings. These reasons include prior commitments in real life. Which is why you learn to appreciate any time together, be it in meetings or during the event, to be as efficient as possible.
:salute
-
Much can be lost or misinterpreted when just reading things. Be it write ups or posts on the forum.
Holding a weekly meeting over TeamSpeak would go a long way in making sure that everybody is on the same page.
It is a lot easier to explain via voice than by posting back/forth.
I know I could talk with someone via TeamSpeak and clear up in 5 min what would take 2-3 pages of text on the forum.
Much is lost both in intent and meaning when typed as opposed to verbally conversing. There is a reason the President has the Red Phone in the Oval Office. (hotline)
It astounds me that you are arguing against this.
I would now ask you a question. Why are you against clear and open communication between the leadership and CM's?
<snip>...The last time this idea of having both sides communicate to prevent the "us vs them mentality", Dantoo exposed me to his manipulation tactics he uses upon the CMs, as well as the role Bearkats has taken as the public image, along with much much more. Sorry, but I don't trust this idea one bit. Many past scenarios have not had serious issues with opposing leadership teams, except for the ones Dantoo/Bearkats and other "ends justify the means" type of people are involved. The XO/CO/CM on both sides already get together on the forums privately, why the need for another form of communication?
<snip>
While what you say is true, I have to watch for your true intentions. Dantoo preached to me that if you want a rule changed, you must use your voice, for words leave tracks to your true intention. My heart broke a thousand times during my time with Dantoo on TeamSpeak, but it made for great education on what types of behavior to avoid for myself. He attempted to lure me with the prospect of both sides working together, when in fact it was his will he wanted to be done on scenarios, using others to get it done. It was from this moment on that I knew my trust would be misplaced with him.
I've apologized for my actions, during my time I spent with Dantoo in Feb 2009, to those who we worked against. I feel so strongly about this, that I do what I can to prevent others from going down the same path, with the hope that they will listen. This is my motivation.
I've shown you a way out, I just hope someday you'll take it.
I strongly feel it is also important to say this:
It is important to appreciate HTC and the CMs for this great event and opportunity that is given to us all.
-
Just to clear that air a big Kermit.
Dantoo and I are both quite strong willed and opinionated.
In this last Scenario, w/o going into any details as that would be in poor taste, Dantoo and I had a knock down drag out fight on what the "plan" should be for a particular frame. It was brutal. I still have copies (I think) of the email exchange and it got pretty harsh.
Dantoo and I decided that the final say on the matter was going to be up to BearKats.
Do you want to take a guess who's plan we ended up going with?
While I CAN be manipulated (talk to my ex-wife) it is not gonna be by Dantoo. He just ain't built for that role. (he is missing a few vital 'parts')
So rest your head that Lute is being controlled by the All Mighty Evil Master of Scenarios as that just ain't gonna ever happen.
I will end with saying that I think Dantoo is a brilliant strategist. He has an incredible grasp on tactics and his ego on the matter is well deserved. The guy is good. I look forward to the day when he is calling the shots on one side in a Scenario and I on the other. THAT would be a ton o' fun!
-
well simple question.... If when we found out where the axis hordes were hiding we werent sent to engage them. I mean if we were already in enemy turf why not go that extra mile and step in their house.....? it happend twice when fighters were refueling at A94 and we as 16s were porking 90 to the south and the mossie NOE raid on the base to the Northeast.
-
well simple question.... If when we found out where the axis hordes were hiding we werent sent to engage them. I mean if we were already in enemy turf why not go that extra mile and step in their house.....? it happend twice when fighters were refueling at A94 and we as 16s were porking 90 to the south and the mossie NOE raid on the base to the Northeast.
We pushed as far as fuel allowed most the time. That was our major limitation w/ several of our rides. The Spit 16's and especially the Typhoons were very limited on range. Spit 14's not so much 'cause they could climb to 30k and loiter up there for a goodly bit.
W/O looking at their orders I can't answer your question about where they staged in the diff. frames.
I will add that if I DID know where they had a massive group staged and it was within' striking range I would have attacked it.
-
Vudu, the reason for your escort duty in beta frame; the Lancasters were to be slaughtered to justify future Lanc missions, attempt to create arrogance in German skill and show that the allies were truly flying inferior planes to also justify the need to mass together.
Be weary of those with "defeatist" attitudes.
Also to help understand why you attacked airfields instead of known enemy aircraft positions:
Dantoo needed a way to thin out the German defenses and give the defenders reasons to leave their strats. He asked for the points value to be increased in the rule making period. This allowed all active airfields on both sides to have a valid reason to be attacked, which can then be used to draw out defenders of strats to rescue the airfields. Then mass attack the South so the Luftwaffe would be unable to protect both strats and airfields while avoiding the Northern Luftwaffe to make them bored and ultimately break unit cohesiveness. This way when after they've been able to allow as much boredom to mess with the Luftwaffe heads as much as possible, an high alt attack could succeed against a hopefully much weaker enemy. The South was chosen first due to the ability to have the majority/entire RAF fight against ~50% of the Luftwaffe. This is what Dantoo wanted, but I don't think it was what the community wanted.
Their ways hurt the community and rely on deception to work.
The good news is if everyone knows this, it makes it that much harder for them to operate in the same way again. Change of tactics they will, but hopefully it will be too late.
:salute
-
Well seeing this conversation from different angles has shown me a lot, and I plan to be more vocal in the future. Hopefully I wont have to say a thing but if the need arises you can count on me to be in the forefront of discussions. As to the deception from Datoo I wasn't there nor can I comment on that I just hope another scenario isint affected in the same way again, because I have never been mad while flying it was ridiculous. I know folks put in a lot of work and thats what makes it even worse. You go wow you put how much time into this and this is what happened........? Now one of he few points I do agree on is a written form of como is hard to to get a point across or folks can misunderstand what your trying to say. Now Lute I dont have any animosity towards you and I'm not that mad about it, it is just a game sir and I would fly under your command again. Just expect to hear from my angle when the dust settles. Thank Yall and have a nice day....
P.S. Thank you for answering my questions.
-
Vudu, the reason for your escort duty in beta frame; the Lancasters were to be slaughtered to justify future Lanc missions, attempt to create arrogance in German skill and show that the allies were truly flying inferior planes to also justify the need to mass together.
wrong
If Dantoo had his way he would have done a similar mission as the Beta in each and every frame. (and if you look at our plans pretty much did)
Also to help understand why you attacked airfields instead of known enemy aircraft positions:
Dantoo needed a way to thin out the German defenses and give the defenders reasons to leave their strats. He asked for the points value to be increased in the rule making period. This allowed all active airfields on both sides to have a valid reason to be attacked, which can then be used to draw out defenders of strats to rescue the airfields. Then mass attack the South so the Luftwaffe would be unable to protect both strats and airfields while avoiding the Northern Luftwaffe to make them bored and ultimately break unit cohesiveness. This way when after they've been able to allow as much boredom to mess with the Luftwaffe heads as much as possible, an high alt attack could succeed against a hopefully much weaker enemy. The South was chosen first due to the ability to have the majority/entire RAF fight against ~50% of the Luftwaffe. This is what Dantoo wanted, but I don't think it was what the community wanted.
Again 100% wrong.
At any point the Axis could have matched us plane for plane in the South and still played it quite safe with having enough assets to protect their Strategic targets. The choice not to was the Axis Leadership and has nothing to do with the Allies. If the Axis were willing to gamble just a bit they could have well out numbered the Allies in the South and decimated them in every frame.
The Allies had 3 groups. Task group, Air Spawn, and the South.
Of the 3 the only viable group that was able to be used to attack the Axis was the South. It has almost everything to do with plane types and basing restrictions and nothing what so ever to do with Dantoo or any sort of "plan" he had.
(edit: I will add that of the AirSpawn groups we did use the Mossies in the S. in an attack role)
Again, tactics were dictated by plane types and basing restriction as opposed to some "Evil Master Plan" from Dantoo who had little to no involvement in the development of the tactics in the South.
Their ways hurt the community and rely on deception to work.
This has got to be a joke as it is so non-reality based to be comical.
Almost nothing that you have put forth as "truth" is even close to factual. All you have done is try to perpetuate some myth you are obsessed with and are trying to shove some warped personal agenda down everyones throat that is neither factual nor is it based only anything other than supposition, conjecture and lies.
I was the Allied XO. I know exactly what went down and how for the Allies. I know who planned what and what level of involvement. You on the other hand do not, and the ideas you are putting forth in this and several other threads are nothing but slander, lies, and falsehood.
The good news is if everyone knows this, it makes it that much harder for them to operate in the same way again. Change of tactics they will, but hopefully it will be too late.
:salute
What part of "Dantoo wasn't involved in well over 2/3rds of the strategy that was planned" are you failing to "get"?
In point of fact, he had almost nothing to do with the plan in Frame 3 and 4. He basically "quit" the Allied Leadership in Frame 3 and pretty much wasn't even asked his opinion in Frame 4. (no more than the Group Leaders were asked after the Frame 4 plan was presented)
In the Beta and Frames 1-2 Dantoo put forth the bomber plan.
TC ran the CV planes, and I was in charge of the Southern forces.
The ONLY person trying to manipulate the community here is you.
Well seeing this conversation from different angles has shown me a lot, and I plan to be more vocal in the future. Hopefully I wont have to say a thing but if the need arises you can count on me to be in the forefront of discussions. As to the deception from Datoo I wasn't there nor can I comment on that I just hope another scenario isint affected in the same way again, because I have never been mad while flying it was ridiculous. I know folks put in a lot of work and thats what makes it even worse. You go wow you put how much time into this and this is what happened........? Now one of he few points I do agree on is a written form of como is hard to to get a point across or folks can misunderstand what your trying to say. Now Lute I dont have any animosity towards you and I'm not that mad about it, it is just a game sir and I would fly under your command again. Just expect to hear from my angle when the dust settles. Thank Yall and have a nice day....
P.S. Thank you for answering my questions.
Vudu, the plan we put forth and implemented was nothing short of one of the most lopsided victories in the history of Scenarios. I for one am proud of each and every player on the Allied team and would be happy to fly with any of 'em at any time in any event.
Kudos to the Allied players!
:aok
-
That should about cover it.
-
See Rule #4
-
Lute I must ask why did you not drive the CV's west/SW in Frame 1 like you did in 2-4?
-
I did not participate in this last scenario, but having worked with each player mentioned in this thread I feel the need to speak my mind.
In my experience each one of them has shown themselves to be a genuinely good person, trying to do what is best for their team. I feel that (in general) these people all work very hard to balance the two goals of (A) making it a good fun event for the players, and (B) win the event.
So if players like 4440, Dantoo, Kermit, and WMLute aren't the problem, it must lie elsewhere.
<S>
-
Blame oneself if you wish to improve the situation for everyone and maintain the great event we have.
Good people are in need, to lead by example.
-
Lute I must ask why did you not drive the CV's west/SW in Frame 1 like you did in 2-4?
I must answer this question, Spikes.......
Since I was the FL and basically incharge of the CV fleets, I worked both flying / coordinating my CV plane grps along with also maneuvering the task groups.... it is kind of hard to do both at the same time when you are in a dogfight with maybe a wingman or 2 up against 4 to 8 enemy..... so in frame 2, 3 , 4 I incoorporated the assistance of another.......
whels joined in the cv plane sqds and only flew maybe one or 2 sorties, but his overall project was maneuver ./ defend the CV's at all cost..... he was gave suggestions but he protected the CV's in the best way he thought possible....
-
I noticed TC..he took out my whole formation with 1 5" round :(
He did a great job just like he does in the MA's. He screwed us all up one drop when we were a bit scattered and we all missed. I give him a lot of credit.
I figured it was because you launched an attack against our bases and needed a place to land afterwards. I knew in Frame 1 it was too good to be true after we sank both CVs and you wouldn't do the same in Frame 2-4.
BTW I only directed the question toward him as he seems to be most active in the topic, I knew you had control over the CVs and stuff :aok
I still think my squad's biggest enemy was the CTD's...they took more lives than a real enemy took IMO. But it's a game, it happens!